Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Farry. I agree there are significant opportunities through the shared island initiative for co-operation and getting projects off the ground. The all-island rail feasibility study is a particularly important one. It is comprehensive by nature but we would be anxious to get going on the more practical initial jobs that could be done fairly quickly after publication. The Belfast-Dublin corridor is one that would make itself readily available to allocation, upgrading, increasing speeds and so on to make it more efficient. We got very significant representations in the north west. I see Senator Blaney's face as I mention Belfast-Dublin. Coming from Cork I understand where he is coming from - it is kind of instinctive. However, we must look at that which is readily doable. That is one area.

Dr. Farry made a good point about the service economy. At the moment we are working on mutual recognition and making progress on it. It is very important we do so. There is perhaps a longer-term issue around potential divergence of regulatory standards, especially in the services area with procurement, tendering and all that. We need to keep a weather eye on that to see how we can ensure we harmonise services on the island so companies are not disadvantaged in bidding for public service projects and so forth and that there are not changes in standards around food or environmental issues. On balance, the UK has, to be fair, a strong record on the climate change agenda. Successive UK Governments have been very positive on that front and long may it continue.

I am conscious there is an election on and that statements or words from me could impact or create a stir that may not be necessary between now and election day, but we will engage on a number of these issues. I am conscious too that over the lifetime of Brexit various things have been floated. Some sink and some are refloated. I do not react immediately when I begin to see articulation of certain ideas from time to time. Overall, unilateralism does not work in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. Having been involved in the Government that signed the agreement and the early days of education partnerships and so on, behind all the peace process throughout the late 1980s and 1990s were the two governments working together, hand in glove, no surprises, heads up, good clarity on the communications between them, working together as the anchor of the agreement. That remains the case today. Both governments are there as co-guarantors to even-handedly, fairly and objectively support the process.

We will play our part in the aftermath of the election, though there is a responsibility on the part of all parties going before the people to respond to the people's mandate. The people are not electing members of parties to not take their seats in the Assembly or to not form an Executive. The people want the parties they vote for to take their seats and form an Executive. I am very passionate about the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement because one of the challenges over the lifetime of it has been the degree to which the institutions were not up and running. They were pulled down for various reasons, and so on, and we did not have and Executive or an Assembly. That damaged the standing of the Assembly and Executive in the minds of the public and probably damaged politics as well, if one contrasts it with public esteem for the Scottish Parliament over time. There is therefore an urgency that those who are elected fulfil their mandates to have the Assembly and form an Executive, irrespective of what way the votes fall. That is the democratic way and what I am passionate about.

Those are my general comments on some of the issues Dr. Farry raised.